The Extraordinary Rendition of Khaled El-Masri
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, Law, The War On Terrorism
I wrote about El-Masri’s case just a few days ago, when his request to sue the government was once again denied because it could potentially expose the CIA’s extraordinary rendition process.
But as El-Masri points out in the following editorial, what else is there to know?
ON NEW YEAR’S EVE in 2003, I was seized at the border of Serbia and Macedonia by Macedonian police who mistakenly believed that I was traveling on a false German passport. I was detained incommunicado for more than three weeks. Then I was handed over to the American Central Intelligence Agency and was stripped, severely beaten, shackled, dressed in a diaper, injected with drugs, chained to the floor of a plane and flown to Afghanistan, where I was imprisoned in a foul dungeon for more than four months.Long after the American government realized that I was an entirely innocent man, I was blindfolded, put back on a plane, flown to Europe and left on a hilltop in Albania â€â€? without any explanation or apology for the nightmare that I had endured.
My story is well known. It has been described in literally hundreds of newspaper articles and television news programs â€â€? many of them relying on sources within the U.S. government. It has been the subject of numerous investigations and reports by intergovernmental bodies, including the European Parliament. Most recently, prosecutors in my own country of Germany are pursuing indictments against 13 CIA agents and contractors for their role in my kidnapping, abuse and detention. Although I never could have imagined it, and certainly never wished it, I have become the public face of the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program.
El-Masri then asks the very simple question, “Why, then, does the American government insist that my ordeal is a state secret?” Yes, why does it? My answer to Khaled is it’s because we’re currently living under an administration that admits mistakes once or twice every five years. Other than that, keep it secret and keep it hidden.
But El-Masri nails why that policy is so destructive to what should be America’s long term mission: winning hearts and minds…
I did not bring this lawsuit to harm America. I brought the lawsuit because I want to know why America harmed me. I don’t understand why the strongest nation on Earth believes that acknowledging a mistake will threaten its security. Isn’t it more likely that showing the world that America cannot give justice to an innocent victim of its anti-terror policies will cause harm to America’s image and security around the world?
Yes. It has and it will continue to do so. Our extraordinary rendition program, and our torture policy in general, is destroying our credibility as the beacon of freedom. Yes, we’re still the good guys, but we’re doing extremely bad things and so we leave ourselves open for comparison with the REAL bad guys. And what’s more, these programs are unnecessary. We don’t need em.
My apologies to you Khaled. Apparently we don’t know any better anymore.
This entry was posted on Monday, March 5th, 2007 and is filed under Foreign Policy, Law, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
WE know better. It’s the government who doesn’t. The “State Secrets” compile a long list that are secrets only because they are coverups for the Cheney administration. If all the records that do not really qualify as State Secrets were released in court , then the major players of our government would be impeached, then tried & convicted for violation of the Constitution - in other words, treason. If el Masri can accomplish this in the Supreme Court, it will bring down the current government because all the other cases that are pending would be free to do the same thing. That would be a good thing for the rest of us.
It is past time we, the people took back our country before it is too late. Then again, maybe it already is.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Justin, can you please give me your definition of torture? I’m legitimately curious.
Mine would be something like: Inflicting severe physical pain on another human being.
Some would define torture as: A denial of due process.
Since this is obviously an issue that you feel quit confident on, I would like to hear yours.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Dos Peros, Is there a definition of torture that doesn’t include being stripped, severely beaten, druged, chained to the floor and imprisoned for months? I know you weren’t asking me but I’m curious as to why this post would prompt that question.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Stripped - not torture.
Severely beaten - torture, but more properly defined as “being severely beaten.”
Drugged - possibly, but more properly defined as “being drugged.”
Chained to the floor - not torture.
Imprisoned for months - not torture.
Of those five actions, three of them (stripped, chained to floor & imprisoned for months) are done to prisoners on a regular basis in any county jail in the United States with no liability at all.
“Torture” is a loaded and inflammatory term. It does no good to say “we should not have a torture policy” if one is unwilling to define “torture.” That is why this post prompted that question.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I define torture as any tactics that can inflict physical and emotional trauma. The government has a much broader definition, but that’s mine.
On the other hand, interrogation is asking somebody questions for a prolonged period of times. Interrogation does not subject the prisoner to threatening dogs, intense climate changes, stress positions, waterboarding or prolonged sleep deprivation. These tactics can and will continue to give the interrogated horrible cases bad post traumatic stress disorder that they have problems functioning normally for the rest of their life. In other words, those tactics are torture.
And let’s be realistic here with your analogy. County prisoners are absolutely not stripped of their clothes for long periods of time and left chained for long periods of time. Yes, they have to change out of their clothes. Yes, they can be chained up for a period while they’re being moved. But those things aren’t the same, and you know it. Also, if they ARE in jail, they get access to a hearing to determine their guilt. Come on Dos, you’re a lawyer! You know about due process.
So, in short, the your relativism doesn’t work here, and the only reason our administration can get away with it is by using their own special definition of “enemy combatant”, which is basically “anybody we want to grab and hold indefinitely” since this is a global war against a tactic. If that’s not wrong, I don’t know what is.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
My relativism! Justin you’ve just provided a definition of torture which is completely subjective — it changes with each individual and their individual susceptibility to trauma. Hell, it is even better than that, according your definition, the mere “possibility” (can) of trauma would, even without trauma actually occuring, be defined as torture. Merely being spooked, or high agitated could qualify. This would cripple even what you would define as “interrogation.”
Look, I don’t think that the U.S. should be engaged in “torture” either. But my definition is more in-line with the traditional concept of torture as is understood in Latin America, Egypt, exc.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
[...] on Terror.” This films details the rendition tales of two men, one of which we’ve talked about at a couple times here, Khaled el-Masri. The other is Binyam Mohamed. el-Masri was released a few months [...]